Complete Works of Lactantius, Vol. I

be born with bodies, and likewise perish with bodies. For they had assumed that nothing comes to be through divine intellect. They could not prove this assertion in any other way than by showing that there were things in which the rationale of providence seemed to limp. Therefore, they criticized those things in which providence had most miraculously expressed its divinity, such as those things I recounted regarding diseases and premature death, when they should have pondered what necessarily followed from these assumptions (and those things I mentioned necessarily follow): that if he did not receive disease, he would be in need of neither shelter nor clothing. For what would he fear from winds, rains, or cold, the force of which is to bring about disease? For this reason, he received wisdom, so that he might fortify his frailty against harmful things. It must necessarily follow that, since he receives diseases for the sake of retaining reason, he also always receives death; because he to whom death does not come must be firm: but infirmity has the condition of death in itself; yet where firmness exists, neither old age can have a place, nor death, which follows old age.

Furthermore, if death were established for a certain age, a human would become most arrogant and would lack all humanity. For the laws of humanity, by which we hold together among ourselves, all arise from fear and the consciousness of frailty. Finally, all the weaker and more timid animals gather together so that, since they cannot protect themselves by strength, they may protect themselves by multitude: but the stronger seek solitude, since they trust in their brawn and strength. If a human also had strength sufficient for repelling dangers in the same way, and needed no other

VARIOUS NOTES.

A assistance, what kind of society would there be? Or what kind of humanity? Or what would be more hideous than a human, more fierce? What more savage? But since he is weak, and cannot live by himself without another human, he seeks society, so that life may become communal and more adorned, and...
You see, therefore, that all human reason stands mostly on this: that he is born naked and fragile, is affected by diseases, and is cut short by premature death; if these were withdrawn from a human, it is necessary that reason and wisdom also be withdrawn. But I have been arguing too long about open matters, since it is clear that nothing can ever exist or come to be without providence. Of all whose works, if one were to wish to discourse in order now, the material is infinite. But I have set out to speak only of the human body, so that the power of divine providence, how great it has been, might be shown at least in these things which are comprehensible and open; for those things which belong to the soul cannot be cast before the eyes nor grasped. Now we speak of the vessel of the human, which we see.

CHAPTER V.

On the figures of animals and limbs.

In the beginning, when God fashioned animals, He did not globule them into a round shape and compress them, so that they might move to walk and bend themselves toward any part easily: but from the very summit, He produced the head; likewise, He produced limbs somewhat longer, which are called feet, so that by turns fixed upon the ground, they might move the animal forward, where the mind had urged or the necessity of seeking food had provoked. From C

divinity itself provides. Thus it is read in the 5 older Regius manuscripts, Cauci, 5 Colbertinus, Ultr., Em., Cantab., Christ., Merton., Marm., Brun., Claromontanus from the first hand, and in almost all printed editions. But 2 Bononiensis, 6 others, and 3 recent editions have "divinity provides its own providence." Both readings are good. The former writing seemed stronger and truer to us.
Like those things. Bov. manuscript, "like those things."
These things being assumed, what would necessarily follow. Namely, that providence. This is the reading of 2 Bononiensis, 2 other Regius, Taxilianus, 2 Colbertinus, Baluzius; in the Regio-Puteanus manuscript, it is "which would necessarily follow," badly. For then there is no connection of the complete phrase. In 4 other Regius, 4 Colbertinus, Em., Cantab., Claromontanus, Brun., and almost all common editions it is "which would necessarily follow." In the Aldine and Paris 1525 editions, "which would necessarily follow."
If he did not receive disease, nor would he need clothes... would he fear the cold. Thus we have corrected this from the Regio-Puteanus manuscript and three other Regius, 4 Colbertinus, Gothanus, Lipsius, and older editions. For these refer to the human of whom it was said above, that he is mortal at any age, and soon below "he received wisdom... to fortify; he receives diseases, he also always receives death." In the more recent manuscripts 2 Regius, 2 Colbertinus, Claromontanus, Baluzius, and 4 editions, it is in the plural number "receive, need, fear"; [which is] vicious.
It must necessarily follow. A Lactantian phrase. Thus corrected from manuscripts and older editions. "Necessarily follows" is in common books. "But it is necessary" in the Claromontanus.
To whom death does not come. Thus we have amended this from 5 Regius, 5 Colbertinus, Gothanus, Lipsius, Claromontanus, Emmeranus, Brun., Bov., and the common editions of Rome 1470, 1474, Paris, Isaeus, Cellarius, Walch. In the most recent 2 Colbertinus, Baluzius, and recent editions, "disease does not..." See the following.
All the weaker and more timid. These are rare examples, where each is joined to comparatives. See ch. 14, "all the more placid." Regarding the sectioning, cf. book III, ch. 15. Bun.
Or what rationale. Thus I have placed this from the older manuscripts, many of which, rejecting those which are in more recent ones and in nine common ones, are inserted, "what reverence, what order?" But in the Bov. manuscript, "what reverence, what rationale, etc."
What would be more hideous than a human. Thus 23 manuscripts and 6, as in Cicero, Book II On Duties, n. 77, and Book II. In other common editions and seven recent manuscripts, it is read "human." Thus below at the end of chapter 5: "a horrible monster."
Without a human. Supply, "another one." Francius.
We speak of, which we see. Thus I restored this from the older editions and the manuscripts 4 Regius, 2 Bononiensis, Taxilianus, Cauci, Gothanus, 4 Colbertinus, Baluzius, Emmeranus, Cantabrigiensis, Brunonianus, and recent 2 Regius, 2 Colbertinus, Claromontanus, and recent printed editions. Thomasiana edition "let us speak." — "We speak." More correct, if I am not mistaken, with respect to the preceding method of indicating; for it determines and explains the proposition or theme of the book more distinctly, and finally undertakes the treatment of the body itself in chapter 8. Bun.
Might produce the animal. Thus I restored this from the older.